Similar attacks — some resulting in death — have previously been reported in Missouri, New Jersey and Decatur. The game also goes by the name “Knockout King,” and experts say it is a grab for attention....

“We know that juveniles don’t think out consequences clearly,” Beth Huebner, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, told the Associated Press after a 72-year-old Vietnamese immigrant was killed in another “Knock ‘em out” case in St. Louis last year.

“They see something on YouTube and say, ‘I want to get that sort of attention, too.’ They don’t think about the person they’re attacking maybe hitting their head."

229 comments:

Juveniles may not think out the consequences of their action, but they have cause and effect figured out on some basic level. They know they are attacking people and hurting them. Teenagers, especially, know what they're doing. These aren't six-year-olds. The hammer needs to drop so that these kids realize that there are real consequences for them.

Without even looking I could guess the race of the animals who did this.

Does this make me a racist? or a person who is observant and able to put two and two together?

And I agree with Matthew. These are young adults, not little babies. By their ages they should have developed a system of morality. Unfortunately, they have...it is just isn't one that humans and civilized people have. They are animals and should be put down or at least locked away from normal people.

Is that supposed to be mitigating? Fuck 'em. Whether they had thought through the consequences or not, they took a life in a way that any reasonable person would have found it a distinct possibility that a person could lose their life. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. They'll think about the consequences then.

It sounds like they are part of a gang, which I imagine has more to do with how they reached this decision than their race. People who have the bad luck and poor judgment to join gangs are not going to suddenly develop good luck and great judgment after joining.

The perps are people of color who didn't understand the potential lethality of their little game.

The victim was Hispanic, but kind of whitish--tho not George Zimmerman white. He eked out an existence as a "scavenger" (i.e., self-employed recycler), so he's clearly a victim of the 1%. OTOH, he was a father of 12, so a probable Catholic who denied his wife access to birth control.

I'll just wait for Obama to tell me who the true victims are in this one. Social-justice calculations are too tough for me.

Ms. Heubner's quote, in isolation, is the worst sort of apologist nonsense from academia. In her possible defense, the press may have taken the one thing they wanted to hear out of several comments.

It is true that teenagers may not understand the risks of behavior, on average, as well as older people. However, this is not a playground prank. It is barbarism. I don't care how old the young man who struck the blow may get, I would never turn my back on him.

I think the whole "oh, they're just kids" line of reasoning falls apart when you read they -went back to his prone body and robbed him.- I could see someone saying: "They didn't realize how strong they were compared to him; yes, it was wrong, but they didn't intend murder!" But -they went back to rob him.-

"When Mora collapsed, Malcolm continued to film the incident, then all three teens ran away, she said. Jones and Ayala then returned to the alley, where Jones stole $60 from Mora’s wallet and gave Ayala $20, according to the prosecutor..."

If that's true, they're going away for as long as the state can hold them, no matter who is on their jury.

Q: They give you their names, some face photos and tell you they were part of a gang called the Latin Kings. There's no gag order on discussing the accused individuals' races (in this case; in others, there may be, but I'm not aware enough about them to say).

No, no it is not a denial of reality. There are plenty of people of many races conducting heinous violence against people of many races. There are also perfectly law-abiding people of many races. The situation and decisions that get you involved with a violent gang have infinitely more weight on if you will become a violent murderer than your race.

The language that journalists use to describe these attacks contributes to the degeneration of society. These thugs decide to knock an older man unconscious, and the newspaper describes it as a ",grab for attention".

A "grab".

Why, this isn't anything for people to get worried about - we just need some more therapeutic government, is all, to handle these 'kids' who are misbehaving.

Of course if it was roaming groups of white thugs punching minorities unconscious, then it would be a serious problem that would not be dismissed as a "grab for attention." But when minorities - like hispanic "Latin Kings" gang members in this case - misbehave, the liberal media must cover for them by trivializing their crimes.

No, no it is not a denial of reality. There are plenty of people of many races conducting heinous violence against people of many races.

Yes, yes, it IS a denial of reality.

While we can take it as a give that somewhere in the country of 300 million people there must be some white gangs targeting non-whites, they are hugely outnumbered in this sort of activity by black and "Hispanic" gangs,

You'll be trying to tell me next that Jewish gangbangers are known to play "Knock Out King" in proportions equal to the "Latin Kings".

The most pathetic and disgusting trait of the liberal mind is the sort of racism you display.

It is true that teenagers may not understand the risks of behavior, on average, as well as older people. However, this is not a playground prank

The nice thing is that most all states have this factored into the penal code.

felony murder doctrine n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the hold-up men or women is killed, his fellow robbers can be charged with murder

The appointed public defender, the Cook County DA, as well as the jails and prisons are all examples of wealth redistribution the City of Chicago can ill afford. They must be awaiting the next federal cash infusion.

“We know that juveniles don’t think out consequences clearly,” Beth Huebner, an associate professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, told the Associated Press after a 72-year-old Vietnamese immigrant was killed in another “Knock ‘em out” case in St. Louis last year.

Bullshit. If a teenage boy knocks out a 72 year old, they know what they are doing. They deserve the book thrown at them.

That's nice. Once you manage to quote correctly, perhaps you can move along to understanding the meanings of different words and terms.

A "gag order" is something which is always issued by a court of law.

A "ban" can be and frequently is issued by all sorts of non-governmental bodies. There is a Boy Scout ban on homosexuals, for instance. There is a media ban on naming the alleged victims of sexual assault. And there is a media ban on describing the perpetrators of violent crime as being one of this countries "minorities".

If ever someone deserved to be on the receiving end of a few fists. . .

Hey, BTW, garbage, did you ever come up with a link to your claim that Tea Party leaders think the Aurora shooting was an Obama false-flag incident? Or was that like your claim that Walker's going to be indicted any minute now! - a product of your fevered masturbatory fantasies?

It constantly amazes me that any of you treat this lying cockholster with courtesy, considering his history of poisoning every thread he infests.

An entire generation of young men raised without any morals at all. The combination of gummint money and the long lefty march through the institutions has created the perfect liberal youth: lazy, no-good, violent criminals on the dole forever.

I am trying to explain it has more to do with the gang part of that compound than the racial part.

And I am trying to explain that this argument, implying as it does that there is no particular relationship between race and gang membership which we need care about, is a sign of your ignorant bigotry.

There is obviously a racial component to racial gangs. But, if you were to stop the forming of gangs, then you solve the problem. Focusing on the racial identity of the gangs is missing the point that criminal organizations are springing up.

I am trying to explain it has more to do with the gang part of that compound than the racial part.

I don't think you can separate those things. Also we need to throw in social-economic status.

Poor, on welfare going back generations, entitled, blacks or other ethnicities that feel AND have been taught to feel oppressed, inner city, broken families, no moral structure from the family, lack of a religious core, uneducated, ignorant to a level we haven't seen in centuries.....all of these things line up to create a sub human, amoral gang structure.

So, do some 'white' kids join gangs. Sure, some. BUT the preponderance of gangs are the demographic above. A demographic created by decades of liberal progressive policies meant, on purpose, to keep those in a dependent, poor, chaotic state.

Previously we had gang culture in the Italians, Irish and Jewish mob styles of the late 1800s and the Prohibition era. However, this was before a permanent welfare underclass created by and supported by the government. As people became more successful and upwardly mobile socially and financially, those gangs became less important.

Nothing like this will happen soon because these people are trapped by the liberals in a self perpetuating cycle of poverty, crime and dependency.

Yeah. But, again, I think getting caught up in the racial aspect of the crime is missing the point. They may all very well be giant racists going around playing knock-out king. The problem is that, when you have people -- of any race -- who reach the point that the game seems like a good idea, it is too late to stop it there. You can't credit it solely to being a certain race. There's a fundamental failure, through probably months or years of their life, that leads to that decision.

That's what you have to fix. It may be a problem with poorer communities more than affluent ones; I'm not a liberal, but I'm pretty sure that the same solutions used to keep a white kid from entering a life of crime will be the same for any other race.

So, we can focus on the race if you want. Or we can actually try and find out what went wrong and how to fix it.

You CAN drag a horse kicking and screaming to water, and then hold its head beneath the surface until it swallows!

Now if I just hold your head there a little longer, you'll admit another patently "obvious" thing - that there are far, far, far more black and/or "Hispanic" guys in racial gangs in America than there are whites. Which is why we never, ever hear of some white guys in the "Honkie Kings" playing Knock-Out King.

Deborah, race didn't occur to me, either. Not that I assumed any race, I just didn't think about it at all.

While it may be true that certain race or races are more likely to be involved in this than others, it doesn't really do any good to just nakedly point this out - we have to get at why this is the case, what can we do about it. Better to examine the culture (fatherlessness and how welfare contributes to it, thug-culture, gangs, problems with the criminal justice system) then just blame one race, which, although I do not think that was the posters' who did that intents, sounds as if you are just saying that one race is just inherently bad.

So, we can focus on the race if you want. Or we can actually try and find out what went wrong and how to fix it

We can stop subsidizing that type of lifestyle. Pouring money down the sewer with NO personal accountability required. No drug testing. No work requirements. Unionized schools that are criminal in their lack of actual eduction.

If everything is free, why should you work. If your family is encouraged to not BE an actual family and is paid MORE the more children you can pump out. If men are not encouraged to be MEN and are emasculated by the government.....what do you think is going to happen. We see it now.

But, stopping the gravy train, stopping the cycle of dependency on government, that also will never happen as long as the liberal/progressives what to continue us down the path to socialism.

I think we're talking at cross purposes; I'm trying to say that the gang problem is a gang problem, not a race problem. It is a problem dealing with crime and the scenarios that Dust Bunny explained above. Race is mixed up in it, but it is not the central, motivating reason behind gang violence; just like in any other group, there are some racists in gangs (probably a higher concentration than the general population since criminals also tend to be unpleasant people in general!) But, I'm trying to explain that you can't simply say that it is a problem caused by race; it's not that simple.

"We can stop subsidizing that type of lifestyle. Pouring money down the sewer with NO personal accountability required. No drug testing. No work requirements. Unionized schools that are criminal in their lack of actual eduction."

-- I can agree with that. Much like education; we spend a ridiculous amount per student per hour for no real change in the quality of the education. We need to better use the money the government has before we should even think about funneling it more.

The problem is that, when you have people -- of any race -- who reach the point that the game seems like a good idea, it is too late to stop it there. You can't credit it solely to being a certain race.

If 100% of the people playing the "game" are non-white and non-Asian, then you can indeed point out that that "game" has a strong racial component.

If gangs of white guys were going around assaulting "people of color" while the reverse never happened, you'd have absolutely zero difficulty in noticing and saying that what was going on was racist.

Why don't you ask yourself why you have such a strong hang-up about condemning the racism of brown-skinned people?

So the strong are preying on the weak again. Now what could that possibly mean?

Is it Neitszche redux?

The earliest mention in scripture of a serious problem like this was the days of Noah when God saw every imagination of the thoughts of mens' hearts were being filled continually with evil.

The wild animals on the Serengeti do murder by instinct for food. But I doubt the animal's minds are continually on violence and murder. That would take depraved humans addicted to u-tube insanity, digital games, and some Dark Knight and Zombie movies.

We may be re- entering the Days of Noah. In the words of a well known Hebrew Prophet in Luke 17:26: " As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man."

The KKK? Again, what they did was purely a problem on the criminal variety. Burning crosses and beating people is a criminal problem that requires law enforcement and social solutions to stop.

People can be as racist as they want, so long as they don't commit crimes. I'd prefer people not be racists; most people prefer that. But, the actual actions are the problem that, as a society, we can step in and stop or control. You can't control someone's thoughts; you can tell them that punching an elderly man in the face is wrong or burning a church is wrong.

Be as racist as they bloody well want; polite society needs nothing to do with them and can use force of government to stop them when they do more than think and say terrible things.

If gangs of white guys were going around assaulting "people of color" while the reverse never happened, you'd have absolutely zero difficulty in noticing and saying that what was going on was racist.

I personally don't think Matthew thinks this way, but it does touch on what has happened in this country: we've been so conditioned to completely ignore race that we also ignore the root causes of these problems.

LBJ's Great Society programs were set up as something to help black people; this is why they're viewed as civil rights victories by CR groups. The fact is since then, black families have a higher out-of-wedlock rate, higher crime rates and higher poverty rates. Now, if you point out these facts, especially in certain company, you're branded a racist.

Q has it right: these are overwhelmingly committed by racial minorities, and it helps no one to ignore the truth.

What are you talking about? That the KKK exists? Or the fact that they were lynching people? That they exist is a necessary evil if you want a free society; that they lynch people is something we can stop with legitimate force. It's important to draw a distinction between what is wrong, but allowable (racism), and what is wrong that we can stop (the assaults).

I also, due to thinking people are inherently decent, think that we as a society can create conditions that erode and destroy racism. Look at how the KKK has been decimated; they don't even have a KKK senator any more now that Byrd is gone!

Matthew Sablan said...There is obviously a racial component to racial gangs. But, if you were to stop the forming of gangs, then you solve the problem. Focusing on the racial identity of the gangs is missing the point that criminal organizations are springing up========================I highly doubt you "solve the problem" of black thuggery if all the gangs magically disappeared. They are cultural, from a warped value system. Present in non-gang members. Even reflecting a genetic proclivity towards impulsive violence, just as other groups have a genetic proclivity to alchoholism or mental depression.

Rack up "eliminating gangs will end black thuggery and violence"..... right up there with "more gun control laws will stop black violence towards each other and members of other races."

People can be as racist as they want, so long as they don't commit crimes.

The definition of racial gangs is that they commit crimes. And not just any crimes, but frequently racial crimes. As shown by this story.

The Mafia are a gang. But they're a gang in the business of making money, not waging a race war. So whatever your race or ethnicity, you don't have to worry much about been murdered by some Mafia goons while walking down the street.

I can agree with that. Much like education; we spend a ridiculous amount per student per hour for no real change in the quality of the education. We need to better use the money the government has before we should even think about funneling it more.

You might, but most liberals wouldn't, because it would disproportionately affect a minority race. And to be perfectly honest, I believe that if any of the above platitudes were boiled down into actual policies, you wouldn't support them either.

Quite literally Clockwork Orange - all that's missing is "Singing in the rain". Its amazing to me how prescient how often literature can be.

FWIW, I grew up outside and lived my early adult life in Chicago. The details change, but the problem has remained the same my entire life. When do we acknowledge that the "solutions" of the last 50 years have been ineffectual at best, indeed probably counterproductive. A vast waste of people and money in the service of good intentions.

What are you talking about? That the KKK exists? Or the fact that they were lynching people?

He is saying that the KKK was picking not just any people, but black people to murder and assault. You would have to say that is racist. Right?

These Knock out Kings and gangs are picking out whites and others based on their race to murder and assault. But you DON'T want to say that THIS is racist?

Why not? Because only white people can be racist pigs? Blacks who do the exact same thing as the KKK get a pass and are excused. This attitude is part of the problem. Racism is racism no matter what direction it is coming from. To be in denial about it and to excuse and to cover up is not helpful and only perpetuates the nasty cycle.

After the Trayvon Martin shooting there was a lot of talk about how black youth were 'under assault' by whites. I think there may be some validity behind those concerns even though I think they're wildly overblown.

But as a white man who lives in St. Louis, my concerns about black on non-black crime in general and these kinds of incidents in particular, are just as valid if not more so.

The only difference is the news media won't talk about them (at least not about the racial component) and I'm not allowed to talk about them.

No, again. These actions can be racist; the racism is bad. But, the only thing we can actually do anything about is the actions. It doesn't matter how racist some asshole is; if he's just a racist it doesn't matter. Once he commits a crime, it doesn't really matter if he is or is not racist.

When it comes to gangs, their motivation is of little real interest so much as stopping their ability to act in a criminal manner and from expanding their reach.

I guessed the race of the perps wrongly twice. If you are saying Latin gang then I guessed wrongly twice.

You see, I did not read the thing because I have a delicate and lighted-hearted state of being to protect, it is the child within saying no don't read that, I think, so I tend take in these things from a distance.

Slurp * drinks chocolate milk through a bendy straw *

So I am relying on your comments to buffer me from the hard cold reality slapped WHAP all at once.

The little bunny within, not the child.

I was visualizing all white people because they're naturally meanest especially the chavs and then DBQ said race and I go, "oh" and changed it to black and then Matthew said Latin Kings and I go "oh, oh" and changed it again.

I guess its that I don't care WHY someone is running around playing knock-out kings or lynching people. All that matters is that they are and that society needs to find ways to stop it in the immediate sense (better law-enforcement, an armed citizenry, any combination of choices that disincentivize people victimizing fellow citizens), as well as to undermine the situations that allow people to enter into criminal enterprises so easily (see the above about the unhealthy failure that has been the state's attempt to replace private charity).

Neither of those solutions really revolve around the race of the people committing the crimes.

You can't credit it solely to being a certain race. There's a fundamental failure, through probably months or years of their life, that leads to that decision.

I think you are missing a key point. It is not that certain races are more prone to this because they are of that race, I think it is a cultural issue. THAT is what needs to be fixed. It’s closing your eyes and ears to bad news to note that this isn’t society wide. It’s young, black and Hispanic men primarily. Anything we do to discourage it should be aimed at those groups.

(and tying it to gang activity only is missing a point because I don’t think they’ve all been gang related. Gangs have always had ‘gang initiation’ stuff, this is something different).

All that matters is that they are and that society needs to find ways to stop it in the immediate sense

You have avoided pointing to race throughout this discussion (don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily faulting you for this). However, if someone tries to address the issue directly (like some of DBQ's ideas of not funding certain things), you can bet your ass that the receivers of aid will be bringing race into the discussion.

It is sad; I really think that, America as a whole, has come along way since even the early 1900s. We're probably the most equal, tolerant country on the planet. It's math that we have to change how the state outlays money, not racism. It is frustrating when people don't recognize that math is color blind.

All the dirtbag criminal types were white when I was growing up next to lillywhite Madison. And they were surprisingly distributed across rich and poor families. That was the 1960s and 70s not festering Chicago and M'Waukee.

It doesn't matter how racist some asshole is; if he's just a racist it doesn't matter. Once he commits a crime, it doesn't really matter if he is or is not racist.

What if he commits the crime because he is racist? It obviously matters that he is racist, because the crime does not occur otherwise.

I also, due to thinking people are inherently decent, think that we as a society can create conditions that erode and destroy racism. Look at how the KKK has been decimated;

But the KKJ was not decimated merely by force of arms. it was decimated by moral force - by the spread in the belief that killing blacks because they were blacks was an exceptionally heinous crime. A worse crime than killing somebody for different reasons.

Some of us believe that this same standard should apply to all racially motivated crimes, regardless of the race of the perpetrator and the race of the victim.

The fact of the matter is that Jones, Ayala, and Malcolm would be in much more danger of lengthy prison sentences if they had committed the exact same crime but were white members of the Aryan Brotherhood.

@chickelit. Oh I agree, they almost certainly didn't see the movie, much less read the book. The ironic point of course is that the author had a much better understanding of these perps than they probably have of themselves.

They clearly knew it was an awful thing to do. That's why they posted it, to show how bad they are, to offend and surprise people with their brutality, and especially to show how they don't mind doing something awful. What they clearly misunderstood is that the rest of us would find it criminal, and come after them.

Now, why would they think they could get away with it even after showing everyone what they did? What made them think fame is so great that even if you do something terrible, that it's still worth it? That's the calculation they made.

Some individuals are incapable of self-moderating their behavior. Others require regular feedback from family, friends, and community in order to behave normally. Most individuals develop -- or originate -- a character which engenders a respect for others.

These individuals are clearly not in the third class; they may be lacking a presence in the second class; or, perhaps, they are simply not suited to live in a civilized society.

Before anyone else is murdered or injured, these individuals should be restrained and evaluated. Their behavior is not at all normal for any age, juvenile or otherwise.

The psychologists and other experts are not helping at all by proposing mitigating circumstances. They already have a lot to answer for with their promotion of self-esteem unsubstantiated by merit, as well as normalizing a host of other unproductive and counterproductive behaviors.

CWJ, follow from when I first replied to DBQ, then get back to me. DBQ said that 'without looking' she could tell the race. I said I hadn't followed the link and assumed 'white.' Sorry to disappoint all you Dick Tracys out there; I only read the post, and was replying to DBQ's conclusion and question.

...I did not read the thing because I have a delicate and light-hearted state of being to protect...

By special dispensation it is hereby declared that Chip Ahoy, by virtue of his delicate sensibility, will be allowed to sidestep harsh reality, providing that he produce one whimsical animation per week at Althouse.

When I lived in Rogers Park, I was sensibly wary of all young males, black or white. Even worse when they had a female to show off for.

You gotta focus on the girl here too. Does she say to the males "bad idea" and try to restrain them from beating up an old man? Nah, she volunteers to film it.

And yeah I was especially wary of young black males. In Chicago that's not racism, that's common sense. I wasn't concerned that they might mug me because I was white. My concern was that they might mug me because I was there. Most young black males would not, but too high of a percentage would.

Maybe a visit from the President will make everyone think more deeply about this.

I guess its that I don't care WHY someone is running around playing knock-out kings or lynching people. All that matters is that they are and that society needs to find ways to stop it

Why are you so adamantly opposed to the possibility that what it takes to stop it will involve cracking down on racism among blacks?

Part of dealing with any problem is understanding that problem. We can't deal with Muslim terrorism merely by saying "I don't care WHY they do it, we just need to find ways to stop it!" You can't find ways to stop something you don't understand.

undermine the situations that allow people to enter into criminal enterprises so easily

That's the trouble with libertarians - they don't understand human beings. Just as with communists, their ideas have a wonderful logical consistency. Just as with communists, their ideas are inapplicable to any people who have ever lived.

"I'm trying to say that the gang problem is a gang problem, not a race problem."

Matthew, we all know what you are trying to say. You are wriggling around trying to pretend that violent crime is not racial in the vast majority of instances. One reason for the black on white crime, like the flash mobs in Chicago recently, one of which was apparently being videotaped for a rap music producer, is that young blacks are being taught that whites are still oppressing them. The fact that the left wing media (sorry to be redundant but you seem slow on this) omits the race of black perpetrators and includes the race if the perp is white, feeds into that sense of victimhood.

I teach medical students and see a lot of non-US born black students. They simply do not have these hangups. They may be a select population to have gotten this far but I have also seen US born black students who do have these hangups.

I think I've recounted a couple of these stories here in the past. I think Obama has some of this problem and probably developed a lot of it through his left wing ideology. It seems to go with the left wing theorizing. The most racist people in this country are white leftists who think blacks are helpless without them.

It is a fact that most black criminals prey on other blacks. The fact that the black community seems to deny the truth and seek solace in victimhood is the most serious obstacle to progress now. White racism, with the exception of leftists, is gone. The rates of intermarriage should illustrate that, if nothing else can. The irony of intermarriage is that it has created a new victim class; black women like the ones who acquitted OJ. How dare that white woman marry one of their black men ?

The fact that the left wing media (sorry to be redundant but you seem slow on this) omits the race of black perpetrators and includes the race if the perp is white, feeds into that sense of victimhood.

As you said, you read the post and didn't see Chicago. For some, its basic reading comprehension, for others its Dick Tracy sleuthing.

Well to be fair to Deborah. Ann's post did not say Chicago directly. You have to know that this was a district of Chicago. Like you would know that the Sunset District is part of San Francisco. However, if you hover your cursor over the link, it says Sun Times. (a paper my father worked at for a while when I was younger...yes we lived in Chicago in the late 1950's for a bit) so that was an additional clue.

So, if we determine that there are different cultural (social) norms existing within the greater society AND that those divisions are predominately aligned with racial background - then would it be OK to talk about race?

First of all this "game" is seems to be "played" only by black kids. Next, any omission of race in a description of a crime committed by a group suggests that the criminals are "youths" which is shorthand for black kids. You do not need to know the geographic location only the absence of racial identifiers and, in this case, the name of the "game."

Well, I don't know all famous districts. I know Haigt-Ashbury, SoHo, Greenwich Village, Hyde Park (Chicago), stuff like that. And may God forgive me and twenty lashes with a wet noodle that I failed to hover my cursor :~)

2007 is old data. Even 2010 is probably a bit out dated by now. Key findings:

"• While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New HampshireMassachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 200."

So, I doubt the availability of guns has anything to do with violent crimes, let alone violent crimes conducted by punching people.

The figures show that California had the highest number of gun murders last year - 1,257, which is 69% of all murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the state. Big as that figure is, it's still down by 8% on the previous year. Other key findings include:• While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New HampshireMassachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man, woman and child in the state. There were 99 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 12% on 2009• DC is followed by Louisiana (7.75) and Missouri (5.34)• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98• If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25)http://www.guardian.co.uk/news...

Interesting the article in Alternet didn't mention California, with very strict gun control laws on the books. Also interesting the non-mention of the record number of murders today in Chicago, IL (another city with very strict gun laws)

Garage: Interesting chart. I am not sure that the CDC is the best source for gun deaths, but I would concede that the states with the highest rates of poverty and attendant concentrations of African Americans likely have the highest gun violence. If you look only at the cities of Milwaukee, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Memphis, and Burlington Vermont you would have a whole different looking chart and one that would belie the statewide statistics.

Well, I don't know all famous districts. I know Haigt-Ashbury, SoHo, Greenwich Village, Hyde Park (Chicago), stuff like that. And may God forgive me and twenty lashes with a wet noodle that I failed to hover my cursor :~)

Pink is my least favorite wedge. I go for green, brown, or yellow.

S'Ok. Pink and orange were my worst. I suck at those. Fortunately, when we played, my hubby is great at the entertainment stuff.

The CDC maps use data from the National Death Index, which collects death certificate data from the entire US. If you look at the rate of firearm deaths by county, the pattern is similar. Note that the Dakotas and Montana have a lot of counties with suppressed data (striped) because the populations are too small to ensure privacy.

ed said... Execute them by hanging. Seems simple enough. Sooner or later you'll either see the message get through or you'll run out of murderers.

Ed. whether you know it or not, you are channeling General Charles Napier, on the topic of local customs of the natives, as in:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

I'm not sure why an outdoors sportman like garage is shilling for gun control.

He just can't be shilling for gun control. In the not-too-distant past I've seen garbage scoffing at the notion that liberals want gun control. He likened the belief that liberals are gung-ho for gun control to the beliefs of the 9/11 Truthers.

"The CDC maps use data from the National Death Index, which collects death certificate data from the entire US. If you look at the rate of firearm deaths by county, the pattern is similar."

Not my point. The red states in the chart were those with the highest rates. I still see comments suggesting the "red states" are the ones that vote Republican.

The death rates still don't distinguish between suicide and self defense. To the CDC all guns are bad. Pediatricians are collecting data from kids on whether there is a gun in the house. Mindless leftism infecting the whole issue.

Actually, if the stats really are "Gun Deaths" (i.e. mingling murders and manslaughters with suicides and justifiable shootings), then the only thing interesting about it is the question: how intentional was this misleading conflation?

I especially love the part where that dipshit Richard Florida claims that McCain voters were more likely to be killed by gunshot than Obama supporters. There is nothing in the CDC data which allows deaths to be broken out by voting behavior.

However, if we look at the people who are most likely to get shot, they are black and Hispanic men. Democratic voters, in other words. The people who voted 98% and 67% respectively for The One.

I'm not puzzled that liberals are so stupid. I am puzzled that people so stupid can have such a remarkably high opinion of their own intelligence.

Hold on a moment! Here we are on a thread about unwarranted violence, and you suggest violence against the misguided? Please!!!! He just said he liked the 7th best; it's not like he said he preferred Mozart to Beethoven or something like that...